There is no historical precedent for this sort of thing. Gay marriage allows same-sex parents to raise children. Again, there is no historical precedent for such arrangements and it remains to be seen what this will eventually bring in western societies.

Indrajala wrote:There is no historical precedent for this sort of thing. Gay marriage allows same-sex parents to raise children. Again, there is no historical precedent for such arrangements and it remains to be seen what this will eventually bring in western societies.

Two other examples of Acts of Parliament which were 'unprecedented '.

The Abolition Of Slavery Act 1833.The Representation Of The People Act 1918 , which gave women the vote.

Indrajala wrote:There is no historical precedent for this sort of thing. Gay marriage allows same-sex parents to raise children. Again, there is no historical precedent for such arrangements and it remains to be seen what this will eventually bring in western societies.

Less orphaned children being put through the state childcare system, one would hope.

indrajala. "Gay marriage allows same-sex parents to raise children. Again, there is no historical precedent for such arrangements and it remains to be seen what this will eventually bring in western societies?"I'm watching with fascination and trepidation....we'll have to wait and see what happens and how this pans out, how it evolves?

For example:The social recognition of committed heterosexual bonding has been a constant for thousands of years. No-one of a conservative inclination wants to mess lightly with that. Counter-arguments like “so was slavery” are unconvincing, as the occasional slights suffered by homosexual couples are microscopic by comparison with the injustice of human beings buying and selling other human beings.

If you have a cognitively-challenged underclass, as every large nation has, you need some anchoring institutions for them to aspire to; and those institutions should have some continuity and stability. Heterosexual marriage is a key such institution. In a society in which nobody had an IQ below 120, homosexual marriage might be plausible. In the actual societies we have, other considerations kick in.

Human nature exists, and has fixed characteristics. We are not infinitely malleable. Human society and human institutions need to ”fit” human nature, or at least not go too brazenly against the grain of it. Homophobia seems to be a rooted condition in us. It has been present always and everywhere, if only minimally (and unfairly — there has always been a double standard here) in disdain for “the man who plays the part of a woman.” There has never, anywhere, at any level of civilization, been a society that approved egalitarian (i.e. same age, same status) homosexual bonding. This tells us something about human nature — something it might be wisest (and would certainly be conservative-est) to leave alone.

Simon E. wrote:The Abolition Of Slavery Act 1833.The Representation Of The People Act 1918 , which gave women the vote.

I don't think you can equate this to slavery.

Not all human societies practice slavery. Not all societies deny women political authority.

There is no human society to date which sanctioned marriage and child rearing by homosexual couples.

And now there are a number. In the UK at least there is a whole generation of kids who have been raised by same sex couples who could not until now sanction their relationship officially. Adoption by same sex couples and surrogacy are well established in the UK already. Its just that those couples could not marry. Those young people appear to have the same spectrum of social skills and of psychological well being as everyone else.

Indrajala wrote: If you have a cognitively-challenged underclass, as every large nation has, you need some anchoring institutions for them to aspire to; and those institutions should have some continuity and stability. Heterosexual marriage is a key such institution. In a society in which nobody had an IQ below 120, homosexual marriage might be plausible. In the actual societies we have, other considerations kick in.[/i]

Is this person seriously suggesting that heterosexual marriage exists to protect "stupid" people against themselves? I find this notion to be very offensive, both in terms of its attitudes towards homosexuality and that it veers very closely to some pretty dodgy eugenicist territory.

Simon E. wrote:And now there are a number. In the UK at least there is a whole generation of kids who have been raised by same sex couples who could not until now sanction their relationship officially. Adoption by same sex couples and surrogacy are well established in the UK already. Its just that those couples could not marry. Those young people appear to have the same spectrum of social skills and of psychological well being as everyone else.

Liberal reforms of the 20th century produced unforeseen consequences. For instance, when many mothers entered the workforce in the 60s and 70s, crime rates subsequently increased. Feminism also contributed to an increase in single parent families which statistically is linked to increased social ills like juvenile delinquency and drug use. Liberal immigration policies and multiculturalism in the west also erased cultural identities of many youth, especially in countries like Canada, while driving down wages.

Arguably liberalism has been responsible for a lot of hardship in recent generations. We don't know what the consequence of state sanctioned homosexual marriages and child rearing will be. I imagine in the not too distant future this might prompt conservative Christians to unite and seek political independence if the state is unwilling to accommodate them. Social cohesion will suffer and lead to more fractures along the conservative and liberal divides.

To me the whole issue of gay marriage reflects a society which doesn't have to deal with, at least for now, matters of national survival. Instead of addressing matters like national defense or critical energy security, the hot topics now are issues like gay marriage.

I would actually agree that denying homosexuals the right to marry is a human rights infringement, but I don't believe in human rights. Human rights are used as justification for ghoulish levels of violence which nowadays tends to hurt civilians the most. It also is used to bully opponent countries on the international stage, like the US trying to denounce China constantly (I'm not pro-China, but they have their own internal logic).

Indrajala wrote: If you have a cognitively-challenged underclass, as every large nation has, you need some anchoring institutions for them to aspire to; and those institutions should have some continuity and stability. Heterosexual marriage is a key such institution. In a society in which nobody had an IQ below 120, homosexual marriage might be plausible. In the actual societies we have, other considerations kick in.[/i]

Is this person seriously suggesting that heterosexual marriage exists to protect "stupid" people against themselves? I find this notion to be very offensive, both in terms of its attitudes towards homosexuality and that it veers very closely to some pretty dodgy eugenicist territory.

No, the author is suggesting that a stable institution like heterosexual marriage (which is condoned and supported by religion) lends support to the unintelligent masses.

Indrajala wrote:There is no historical precedent for this sort of thing. Gay marriage allows same-sex parents to raise children. Again, there is no historical precedent for such arrangements and it remains to be seen what this will eventually bring in western societies.

Having known many children of same-sex couples, all that I have met are heterosexual in orientation, though I am sure there are children of same sex couples who themselves are also gay, I just haven't met any. Since gay couples actually want children and often have to jump through high hoops to have them, they are generally much more loving and supportive as a whole population than heterosexual parents are. So, my experience with the children of same sex couples is that they do extremely well in school, are highly motivated to succeed, and are well loved and turn out to be fantastic people with few problems. So what down side can there be? Added to this, same sex couples who want kids are themselves usually in good relationships and are professionally successful.

Marriage is just a business contract. Gender orientation and marriage are not coterminous. There are many gay men and women for example in history who have married for the social protections such arrangements offered. Now gay persons can marry people of their own orientation. There is no justifiable argument that can be produced which can show that gay marriage is disadvantageous to society as a whole. People who make such arguments are like those who argued against "miscegenation". In other words, they are bigots seeking intellectual justification for their bigotry.